Proposal topic: Aliens are Real

Electoral College
Reform Proposal

Protesters in Boston voice their disapproval of the Electoral College following the 2004 presidential election with posters saying, “Electoral College Is Not Democratic”, “Save Our Democracy, Count the Votes”, and “Bush Stole Our Vote, Stop Him Now” (Spakovsky). (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

Student Name

English 1302-21008

November 28th, 2016

Problem/Issue Overview:

The Electoral College (EC) as it is currently constructed is not suitable for the size and scope of the current American democracy. There have been five elections in U.S. history in which the person who won the EC did not win the popular vote, therefore demonstrating that it is not fully representative of the people. The image above reflects the EC results of the 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 presidential elections. The reason behind the EC and people not selecting their president comes from the 1870’s when Alexander Hamilton raised awareness of what he called “tumult and disorder” that could rise up from elections. If the people voted directly for the president, he believed there was a probability that the election would “convulse the community with…extraordinary or violent movements.” Rather “this detached and divided situation” outlined in the Constitution would be less likely to produce “heats and ferments.” Essentially, Hamilton and the other Founding Fathers did not trust that the people were intelligent enough to be electing presidents and therefore created a “small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass” who “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations” (Friedman).

The Electoral College result maps for the 2000-2012 Presidential elections. The left side shows which states each candidate won, the middle shows how many electoral votes they received, and the rights shows which candidate won the election (Esteban and Keating).

Of course, that is not what really happens anymore. A fear of tyranny of the majority matched with a fear of a lack in intelligence are the grassroots of the EC. So the question arises; if the original reason for the system is no longer relevant, why has it been maintained? Under the electoral college structure created in the Constitution, smaller states have enormous political leverage. According to an analysis from the Huffington Post, Wyoming has a population of 584,153 people and has three electoral votes, which means that each Wyoming elector represents 194,717 voters. California has a population of 38,800,000 people and has 55 electoral votes so each elector represents 705,454 voters. So each vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times more than each vote in California (Esteban and Keating). Other smaller states such as Rhode Island, Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Idaho also have exalted political power (Stephanopoulos et al. 761). That is a clear problem. The idea of one person one vote no longer holds true due to the way the EC works in present day elections.

Solutions:

There is not one simple solution to fixing the Electoral College. In this election year, the problem resided in the divide of rural and urban voters and the extreme power rural votes had due to the EC. There are two achievable options that could lead to a dramatic difference: 1) amend the EC to become a proportional system instead of the winner takes all system that it currently is, therefore giving the candidate with 47% of the vote 47% of the electoral college votes in a state as opposed to the entire amount or 2) amend the EC to become a parliamentary system in which voters in every district choose a party, and the party that wins the most districts gets to pick the top leader (in this case, the president). Destroying the entire Electoral College is not a good idea. It contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system and maintains a federal system of government and representation.

The EC is not inherently bad; it is just poorly executed. Supporters of abolishing the EC and only using the popular vote instead fail to realize how difficult it would be to completely diminish the existence of the EC. It is embodied in Article 2, Section 1 and in the 12th Amendment, making the EC a cemented part of American democracy. Solutions encouraging reform as opposed to abandonment are realistic because they can be achieved through either ratifying or amending the Constitution with legislation that would improve instead of destroy. Of course, those are not easily achievable tasks in the U.S., and they both require a lot of agreement from all parties in Congress, but it can be advocated for and eventually executed.

Benefits of Solutions:

A benefit of the proportional vote system is that this would encourage candidates to pursue votes in every state, not just those they can win outright. Proportional results are less decisive than winner-take-all, so there’s less chance of a clear winner with a mandate to lead. This could help cut down false leads presented by the media, a major problem from the 2016 primaries and general election. In 2000, neither candidate would have won a majority, so some combination of parties would have to form a coalition to get 270 electoral votes, or the country could have a do-over election (Esteban and Keating). This system would greatly increase voter turnout and the representation of all parties in a state. It would also encourage candidates to campaign in all states rather than just those that are competitive. Though the majority, as always, would come out on top in each state, the minority’s supporters would not be effectively contributing to their candidate’s defeat when the whole of their state’s electoral votes go a candidate they do not support. It would give more power to each vote, while still keeping a framework of the EC. This solution, although not perfect either, would be a compromise for electoral reform.

Countries like Britain have voters in every district choose a party, and the party that wins the most districts gets to pick the top leader, which they call the prime minister. This parliamentary system has the advantage of giving voters everywhere relatively equal weight in picking the leader. A common trait of Parliamentary representation is the ability for more parties to be in power as opposed to just two. This system would increase the power of a vote by giving voters more of a choice and it would give minority parties a chance to come to power. Because Republican state legislatures effectively redrew congressional district lines after the 2010 Census, Democrats got more votes for Congress in 2012 but Republicans won 33 more seats. Unfortunately, gerrymandering would cause problems with this solution. Using Congressional districts to determine each elector would also draw more attention to the way districts are drawn, already a hot-topic in politics today. The vast majority of districts are drawn as “safe zones” for one of the two major political parties. For this reason, basing electoral vote allocation on Congressional districts as well would raise the stakes of redistricting considerably and make gerrymandering even more tempting. Gerrymandering and very few competitive districts would be very decisive in the outcome of an election using the Parliamentary system. This would require redistricting and electoral reform, therefore resolving two major issues in American politics with one compromise.

Graphic showing how the popular vote winner can lose the electoral vote. In this demonstration, there are 247 popular votes and 53 Electoral College votes. A candidate can win 129 popular votes and still lose the EC 27-27 (Szu).

Conclusion:

When debating whether some aspect of the Constitution makes sense, it’s useful sometimes to think of the Constitution as an experiment — as a work in progress. In 1787, no republic like the United States existed anywhere in the world. The founding fathers were making things up as they went along, looking at history, philosophy, and what they did and didn’t like about existing governments in Europe and America (Wolff and Gnazzo). And not all of them agreed — in fact, many of them disagreed completely, even on important issues such as how much power the people should have. The Electoral College was a compromise on two important issues. The first was how much power the people should have, and the second was how much power small and large states should have. The image above simplifies numbers to demonstrate that a candidate can win the popular vote by a decent margin and can still lose the EC. Voters are losing their voice and their vote is beginning to be powerless in the face of the EC. Five elections have occurred with a popular vote winner losing the EC; five elections have occurred with a president not chosen by the people. Legislators should look at how the U.S. has grown and compromise again to create a more appropriate form of the Electoral College.

Works Cited

Esteban, Chiqui, and Dan Keating. “Hate Our Electoral System? Here’s Who Could Have Been President under Other Setups.” The Washington Post, Oct. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/election-outcome-other-systems/. Accessed 15 Nov. 2016.

Friedman, Leon. “Why Do We Have the Electoral College?” The Huffington Post, 10 Nov. 2016, www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/why-do-we-have-the-electo_b_12885468.html. Accessed 15 Nov. 2016.

Spakovsky, Hans Von. Protesters in Boston, Mass., voice their disapproval of the Electoral College following the 2004 presidential election. CNS News, 22 Apr. 2016, www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-von-spakovsky/plan-destroy-electoral-college. Accessed 28 Nov. 2016.

Stephanopoulos, Nicholas O., et al. “The Realities of Electoral Reform.” Vanderbilt Law Review, vol. 68, no. 3, Apr. 2015, pp. 761-853. Academic Search Complete, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=102443659&site=ehost-live. Accessed 27 Nov. 2016.

Szu. “Pop Winner Loses Elec Vote.” Wikepedia, 19 Sept. 2007, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/PopWinnerLosesElecVote . Accessed 6 Dec. 2016. Chart.

Wolff, Bill, and Cory Gnazzo, producers. “Episode 221701.” The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 23 Nov. 2016, tunein.com/radio/The-Rachel-Maddow-Show-p54878/. Accessed 28 Nov. 2016.

Homelessnessin Texas

Problem/Solution Proposal

(Picture of a homeless man lying on the sidewalk, with a man wearing a black suit cover the eyes of another man walking by the homeless man (Muhammad).)

Presented by: Student Name

December 4, 2016
Problem/Overview:

(Pie chart showing the different percentage of what causes homelessness in the state of Texas. Listing: loss of job 35%, bill higher than earning 15%, evicted by family member 13%, abuse at home 11%, incarcerated 11%, mental issues 10%, change of family statue 10%, drug abuse 9% (Rausch).)

There are countless reasons why someone might end up homeless. Some of those reasons could be job loss, domestic violence, mental illness, and addiction. According to Ana Rausch, the Senior Research Project Manager who works for an organization that studies homelessness in Houston, Texas, there are different types of homelessness which are situational, episodic, and chronic. Situational homelessness is when a person is forced to be homeless due to losing a job or the loss of the breadwinner. Episodic homelessness is when a person that gets out of homelessness for a short period of time but end up homeless again. This usually happens to people who have a drug addiction and attempt to stay clean from drugs but usually fall back into homelessness. Lastly, chronic homelessness is when a person lives on the street for long periods of time with no resources or people to help them (Rausch). The picture of the pie chart shows the ratio of reasons people become homeless and the largest percentage is loss of job.

(Picture of the united states, showing the population of homelessness in each state. The states that have the highest population is California, Washington, New York, Florida, and Texas (Henry 10).)

According to the annual assessment report to the congress on homelessness, this picture shows that in the state of Texas, as of 2014, there was an estimated report of 28,495 homeless people out of the 26.96 million people in Texas (Henry 8). It may not seem like a lot but those reported numbers are majority reports of people who go to shelters in Texas. Most people think that homelessness happens because people spend their money on drugs or alcohol. Therefore the government’s solution to homelessness is to spend taxpayers’ money towards healthcare for the homeless. According to “One Path, Many Destination” article written by the Administration of Housing Programs, the average cost for a city to spend on one homeless person is $40,000, due to shelters, healthcare, and jails. Unfortunately, all that money being spent toward the attempt to help the homeless are only catering to a small portion of what causes homelessness. Shelters may provide food and shelter but it also keeps the homelessness homeless due to the lack of chance of being able to find a job. Then the spending healthcare toward homelessness to help with drug addiction or mental illness is helpful but does not fix the problem of homelessness because it does not provide them a job or home (“One Path” 3).

Solution:

There is a solution to homelessness and it is to give homeless people a home, more specifically a tiny house. A tiny house is a house that is at a significantly smaller scale of a house. Since there are different types of homelessness, situational, episodic, and chronic, there should be different requirements in order for this solution to work.

An example of fixing chronic homelessness with tiny houses

In Austin, Texas a community called Community First is testing to fix chronic homelessness by building tiny houses. According to Eliza Weeks’ report, her article to Austinot claimed, Alan Graham made Community First and had a 27 Arce plan to build tiny houses and give it to the chronically homeless and disabled. Residents at the Community First pay rent, and rent price depends on the tiny house. This community has job opportunities for the residents such as having classes teaching how to locally trade and grow food. There is also a blacksmith forge, and an art studio therefore residents can learn to make items and sell it. This way the residents can learn to make an income for themselves (Weeks).

Make a community including situational and episodic homelessness

Community First is heading toward the right direction to reduce the numbers of homelessness but it only focuses on chronic homelessness. In order to get this to work for different types of homelessness, the community should offer more opportunities for situational and episodic homelessness. Since situational homelessness is temporary, there should be a program to help improve skills on getting hired for a job. This way it will be faster for them to find a job and be on their way. Then for episodic there should be a program included with the community to help them recover from addiction, therefore it will help prevent them from falling into homelessness repeatedly.

Getting the Texas government involved

By having the example of Community First and ideas to improve to help implement this idea throughout major cities in Texas, this idea must be presented to a senator. This way if the senator decided to write up a bill on these issues, the idea will then be in progress of whether or not the Texas government will be able to redirect the existing funds to homelessness and put it towards the idea of tiny housing.

Benefits:

Keeps homeless off the streets

By keeping the homeless off the streets, we can prevent homeless people from getting sick or being arrested. The homeless get sick on the streets because basic necessities for living can’t be provided to them by living on the street. Homeless people tend to struggle to maintain hygiene, find nutritional food or clean water, and a safe, comfortable place to sleep. Having to live in a condition with struggling to have the simple essentials to life leads to failure of health. In addition to not being able to have the basics, the homeless may turn to stealing in order to get food or a place to sleep. Sometimes, in serious cases homeless people find ways to get arrested and go to jail, just so they have a place to sleep and have food provided to them.

More cost effective

Tiny houses can be very inexpensive to build, it could cost as low as $5,000 to build one tiny house (Weeks). According to Erika Lundahl, from a nonprofit media organization called Charter for Compassion, “The cost of homelessness to taxpayers was more than $10 million per year in Austin, (…) a housing program for the homeless reduced the costs of public services (including medical services, temporary shelter, and costs associated with arrests and incarceration) by an estimated $15,773 per person per year, 

saving taxpayers thousands of dollars”

 (Lundahl). This proves that by giving the homeless a permanent place to live, we can save money by avoiding the issues of medical services, temporary shelters, or the cost involving arrest.

Given an opportunity for a fresh start

Having the homeless being able to rebuild their lives together as a community, whether it is chronic, episodic, or situational homelessness. Just like in the community of Austin, called Community First, they allow homeless to live in tiny houses if they are to pay the rent. They have the choice of finding a job on their own or taking a job in the community. This way whatever might be the reason a person becomes homeless, they will have a community of people who have been in similar situation and can work together to get back on their feet and be able to integrate back into society (Weeks).

Conclusion:

Using this solution of making a community of tiny houses has benefits such as keeping homeless off the streets, being cost effective, and helping homeless reposition their lives. This will help reduce the amount of homeless people at a dramatic rate. The idea of Community First working in Austin, Texas, give a base line work and with additional ideas of a job and rehab program. The Texas government should consider to fund this idea of a community to every major city in the state of Texas. In return, this will provide more money towards other ideas that will make the State of Texas even better and if it proven to be well, will affect the rest of the United States.

Works Cited

Henry, Meghan. “The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.” 2014. hudexchange, www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2014-AHAR-Part1 . Accessed 6 Dec. 2016. Manuscript.

Lundahl, Erika. “Tiny Houses for the Homeless: An Affordable Solution Catches on.” Charter for Compassion., 4 Feb. 2014, www.charterforcompassion.org/problem-solving/tiny-houses-for-the-homeless-an-affordable-solution-catches-on. Accessed 6 Dec 2016.

Muhammad, Bahirah. Homelessness. JPEG file, 14 Nov. 2016. 

“One Path, Many Destination.” Journal of Housing & Community Development, vol. 73, no. 3, May-June 2016, pp. 6-12. Academic Search Complete, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=116831887&site=ehost-live. Accessed 10 Dec. 2016. 

Rausch, Ana. “Homelessness 101.” Homelessness Houston, 2016, www.homelesshouston.org/homelessness-101/. Accessed 6 Dec. 2016.

Weeks, Eliza. “Community First! Village Goes Beyond Housing for Austin Homeless.” Austinot, 18 May 2016, austinot.com/community-first-village-austin. Accessed 6 Dec. 2016.